When talking about health insurance, "mandatory" is an increasingly popular
term among politicians of both major parties, including presidential
candidates. What do they really mean by it? Put simply, being uninsured
would no longer be a misfortune or a choice, but a crime. And for the
insured, the issue is much more complicated.

No politician is going to use the force of law to require you to buy
insurance without going further to specify in detail exactly the kind of
insurance and what it must cover. Many states now have a long list of
requirements for all insurance policies, and that list is sure to get longer
if insurance becomes mandatory. And sure to follow will be regulations
governing who the insurance companies may, may not or must sell to, and
when. A mandate forcing millions more to buy these policies with so many
things requiring coverage will create a tremendous magnet for any special
interest with an agenda to pile on even more requirements. Then, as costs of
such policies go into orbit, more government intervention will be called for
to subsidize those increasing costs.

Once all of the regulations are in place, there is plenty of opportunity for
regulators or politicians to expand on what mandates can really mean. For
example, Senator John Edwards says that his plan for national mandatory
insurance would require every individual to take regular physical
examinations. What kind of examinations? That would not be left up to you
either. After all, if you cannot be trusted to go see a doctor, you cannot
be allowed to decide which ailments and which body parts you should be
examined for. Women would not be urged but required by law, says Senator
Edwards, to get regular mammograms.

It is fascinating to speculate about how the federal government would
enforce these mandatory examinations. Perhaps all of your newly computerized
medical records will be regularly forwarded to government officials for
inspection. Or perhaps you will have to attach the results of your mammogram
or prostate exam to your IRS tax return every year.

Senator Edwards would also mandate dental and mental health care as a part
of his plan. Then a policeman would be able to give you a ticket if you
don't go in for your root canal. How often would you have to see your
psychiatrist so he can certify to the government that you are not going
nuts? Indeed, that might become more difficult as the mandates expand.

What kind of thinking or what political principles can justify such
proposals? One is tempted to believe that the most heartwarming aspect of
these proposals for Senator Edwards is the millions of additional
opportunities they would create every day for some trial lawyers to bring
litigation on behalf of patients being forced into their doctor's office.
But it is probably worse than that. Senator Edwards says he wants to impose
these mandates on everyone because "what child, what woman, what man in
America is not worthy of health care?" They all obviously are worthy. That
is not the question. The question, Senator, is: what child, what woman, what
man in America is not worthy of freedom?

Perhaps it is a good thing that Senator Edwards is being so threateningly
explicit with his proposals. It is not a stretch to reach the conclusion
that politicians that want to make all of your health decisions for you and
mandate every detail of your health care, no matter how personal, are really
after ownership of your body. They think that if they pay for the care of
your body (with money that they take from you), then they own it. Don't
worry; they may let you keep the other stuff.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to candidates like Senator Edwards for making
absolutely clear just what mandatory insurance really means.